Yet with all this going on, CO2 is higher than it was in the past and the temperature is still 3-5C cooler, with only a 1.2C rise in about 150 years compared to 3-5C (and higher) rises in shorter time spans of a decade or less in the past, clearly showing CO2 is not the demon we have been led to believe, the only thing that we have done to increase the CO2 in the atmosphere to the extent it has is cut down the damn trees to make this wonderful world for a 1/4 of the population that will never let it go while the other 3/4 starve and their land is used to feed, clothe, power and make all those other glittery goods like the PCs we are all using to type on, or the gold in some peoples teeth or around their necks or the diamonds on the end of our drills and in our saws or again around some peoples bloody necks.

Where did anyone get accurate decadal data that far back? The error bars for the date alone are larger than that for any long term reconstruction, much less the temperature.

The arctic Wayne, they have refined the resolution in the way they study the cores when using O18 instead of gases, as we all know show massive uncertainty due to the squeezing of them upward and away from the layer they settled in.

"On the other hand, very rapid warming is known to have occurred at times; for example, Anklin et al. (1993) report warming by 7 °C over a few decades in Greenland at the end of the Younger Dryas and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001a) concludes that warming may have occurred at rates as large as 10 °C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere at this time."Flying in the face of climate change: a review of climate change, past, present and future

I can't find the papers that have the within a decade, but again I point you to a quote from the ANDRILL paper I cited in another post

"Ice core data from the last glacial period in Greenland show that change at that time could proceed rapidly - with several increases of more than 10ºC within a decade to possibly one to two years (Fig. 3.13); comparable changes in Antarctica were much slower."Chapter 3Antarctic climate and environment history in the pre-instrumental period

Talking about error bars, how narrow would error bars become when data that is collected daily (and adjusted) gets converted to monthly (and adjusted), 3 monthly(and adjusted), yearly(and adjusted), then 5 yearly(and adjusted), then 15 yearly (and adjusted) like all the pretty data that is used to push the current warming cycle and CO2??

You do realize the HUGE error in comparing local changes to global changes in such a fashion do you not? You are taking the current global change and comparing it to a local change in trying to say the historical changes were greater. I am sure we could find local changes now that would be greater than the localized changes you are comparing, but that would give us nothing with the comparison.

The error bars ARE small in comparison to reconstructions of large areas even back 1000 years. You have no large area reconstructions with which to compare similar data so there is no real comparison to make.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You do realise I am mainly talking about the arctic and antarctic don't you, that would mean that they are local to their respective selves eliminating the error you seem to believe I am making. Yet everyone is going on about how important the arctic is to the global temperature and how it affects it, yet the evidence shows that while the arctic ice is sensitive it is not unusual in what we are currently seeing and in fact if the sensitivity of the climate is as great as we have been led to believe those local temperatures would be much higher than they currently are with the amount of CO2 or other GHG, the same goes for the antarctic. So if we have what could be classed as normal activity for the poles because of the evidence with their importance in the climate system, then the rest of the climate on a global scale is normal with some local anomolies due to change in land use and not CO2 or other GHG.

You also slated the research from the source of what is used by the likes of the IPCC to push a GW agenda through to human interaction with the atmosphere being the sole cause and yet the research is direct from the horses mouth so to speak instead of some second hand reconstructed research by someone who hasn't even been there.

You do realise I am mainly talking about the arctic and antarctic don't you, that would mean that they are local to their respective selves eliminating the error you seem to believe I am making. Yet everyone is going on about how important the arctic is to the global temperature and how it affects it, yet the evidence shows that while the arctic ice is sensitive it is not unusual in what we are currently seeing and in fact if the sensitivity of the climate is as great as we have been led to believe those local temperatures would be much higher than they currently are with the amount of CO2 or other GHG, the same goes for the antarctic. So if we have what could be classed as normal activity for the poles because of the evidence with their importance in the climate system, then the rest of the climate on a global scale is normal with some local anomolies due to change in land use and not CO2 or other GHG.

No, you were not speaking of polar data when you stated this comparison:

Quote:

Yet with all this going on, CO2 is higher than it was in the past and the temperature is still 3-5C cooler, with only a 1.2C rise in about 150 yearscompared to 3-5C (and higher) rises in shorter time spans of a decade or less in the past, clearly showing CO2 is not the demon we have been led to believe,

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You also slated the research from the source of what is used by the likes of the IPCC to push a GW agenda through to human interaction with the atmosphere being the sole cause and yet the research is direct from the horses mouth so to speak instead of some second hand reconstructed research by someone who hasn't even been there.

I was not speaking of research reconstructions, but temperature reconstructions in general. The use of proxy determinations increase the error bars for the temperature range and the farther back in time the greater the error bars for time determination too. It is a fact of such research and to try to claim a decadal precision is more than a bit much.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

You do realise I am mainly talking about the arctic and antarctic don't you, that would mean that they are local to their respective selves eliminating the error you seem to believe I am making. Yet everyone is going on about how important the arctic is to the global temperature and how it affects it, yet the evidence shows that while the arctic ice is sensitive it is not unusual in what we are currently seeing and in fact if the sensitivity of the climate is as great as we have been led to believe those local temperatures would be much higher than they currently are with the amount of CO2 or other GHG, the same goes for the antarctic. So if we have what could be classed as normal activity for the poles because of the evidence with their importance in the climate system, then the rest of the climate on a global scale is normal with some local anomolies due to change in land use and not CO2 or other GHG.

No, you were not speaking of polar data when you stated this comparison:

Quote:

Yet with all this going on, CO2 is higher than it was in the past and the temperature is still 3-5C cooler, with only a 1.2C rise in about 150 yearscompared to 3-5C (and higher) rises in shorter time spans of a decade or less in the past, clearly showing CO2 is not the demon we have been led to believe,

That is a fair point, I did not clearly state my reasoning for making that statement and apologise for it misleading you into thinking I meant something else, but my point still stands that the global 1.2C rise we have seen in the last 150 years is not unnatural with the importance of the arctic/antarctic in the climate system when it is well within its own natural cycle.

"I was not speaking of research reconstructions, but temperature reconstructions in general. The use of proxy determinations increase the error bars for the temperature range and the farther back in time the greater the error bars for time determination too. It is a fact of such research and to try to claim a decadal precision is more than a bit much."I didn't claim anything, it is the scientists that do the research at the poles that have made the claim because they have the raw data. I do agree that normally the further back you go the greater the error, the same with carbon dating, but they have made the claim and it is repeated in much of the work of the researchers from the various organisations that are there.

You do realise I am mainly talking about the arctic and antarctic don't you, that would mean that they are local to their respective selves eliminating the error you seem to believe I am making. Yet everyone is going on about how important the arctic is to the global temperature and how it affects it, yet the evidence shows that while the arctic ice is sensitive it is not unusual in what we are currently seeing and in fact if the sensitivity of the climate is as great as we have been led to believe those local temperatures would be much higher than they currently are with the amount of CO2 or other GHG, the same goes for the antarctic. So if we have what could be classed as normal activity for the poles because of the evidence with their importance in the climate system, then the rest of the climate on a global scale is normal with some local anomolies due to change in land use and not CO2 or other GHG.

No, you were not speaking of polar data when you stated this comparison:

Quote:

Yet with all this going on, CO2 is higher than it was in the past and the temperature is still 3-5C cooler, with only a 1.2C rise in about 150 yearscompared to 3-5C (and higher) rises in shorter time spans of a decade or less in the past, clearly showing CO2 is not the demon we have been led to believe,

That is a fair point, I did not clearly state my reasoning for making that statement and apologise for it misleading you into thinking I meant something else, but my point still stands that the global 1.2C rise we have seen in the last 150 years is not unnatural with the importance of the arctic/antarctic in the climate system when it is well within its own natural cycle.

There is no valid comparison of a global temperature average and a local temperature average from different periods of time. Thus you cannot claim it is or is not natural for the locality as there is only one local datum and one global datum being compared.

Quote:

"I was not speaking of research reconstructions, but temperature reconstructions in general. The use of proxy determinations increase the error bars for the temperature range and the farther back in time the greater the error bars for time determination too. It is a fact of such research and to try to claim a decadal precision is more than a bit much."

I didn't claim anything, it is the scientists that do the research at the poles that have made the claim because they have the raw data.

Except you have not found such a claim. If they make such a claim they are wrong because they have not done the analysis of the data correctly.

Quote:

I do agree that normally the further back you go the greater the error, the same with carbon dating, but they have made the claim and it is repeated in much of the work of the researchers from the various organisations that are there.

But it was not quoted in the defense of your decadal change. There were statements of "a few decades", which is not precise and a bit subjective. There were also other caveats such as "may" included to give the uncertainty.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

"Ice core data from the last glacial period in Greenland show that change at that time could proceed rapidly - with several increases of more than 10ºC within a decade to possibly one to two years (Fig. 3.13); comparable changes in Antarctica were much slower."Chapter 3Antarctic climate and environment history in the pre-instrumental period

Have to post it again, the ANDRILL team that wrote that paper thought it important enough to break it down to "within a decade to possibly one to two years" and they must have got that from somewhere, and the logical place is the team at the other end of the earth in the more sensitive ice covered pole.The IPCC thought it important enough to declare it to "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001a) concludes that warming may have occurred at rates as large as 10 °C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere at this time"

and so on.

Yet you are saying they are wrong on this, yet with everything else they are right because they also talk about current CO2 and GHGs which is where the crux of the argument about human influence on arctic ice and temperature comes from, and from that a large part of the argument about human released ghgs and global temperatures.

When talking about error you make it sound like these guys don't know what they are doing, yet they claim it is within 50 years and that is a pretty narrow margin over a long period of time, and yet if we have had such an impact on the climate up till now we have only seen small temperature rises in comparison to natural ones in the past in those senistive regions.

"Ice core data from the last glacial period in Greenland show that change at that time could proceed rapidly - with several increases of more than 10ºC within a decade to possibly one to two years (Fig. 3.13); comparable changes in Antarctica were much slower."Chapter 3Antarctic climate and environment history in the pre-instrumental period

Have to post it again, the ANDRILL team that wrote that paper thought it important enough to break it down to "within a decade to possibly one to two years" and they must have got that from somewhere, and the logical place is the team at the other end of the earth in the more sensitive ice covered pole.The IPCC thought it important enough to declare it to "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001a) concludes that warming may have occurred at rates as large as 10 °C/50 years for a significant part of the Northern Hemisphere at this time"

and so on.

Yet you are saying they are wrong on this, yet with everything else they are right because they also talk about current CO2 and GHGs which is where the crux of the argument about human influence on arctic ice and temperature comes from, and from that a large part of the argument about human released ghgs and global temperatures.

When talking about error you make it sound like these guys don't know what they are doing, yet they claim it is within 50 years and that is a pretty narrow margin over a long period of time, and yet if we have had such an impact on the climate up till now we have only seen small temperature rises in comparison to natural ones in the past in those senistive regions.

Yes, I would question whether they know what they are doing given the quote was about ice core data from a graph spanning 50k years with a supposed resolution of at least 10, but possibly 1 to 2 years. Didn't you just point out the problems with gases from ice core data just like the data used for this conclusion? Not sure what the "could" was supposed to represent, possible span or determioned span?

While the changes from glacial to interglacial states (Fig. 3.12) are to some extent predictable, relying as they do on the Earth’s orbital behaviour, other kinds of change are not. These include the abrupt Dansgaard-Oeschger (D/O) cooling events in Greenland and their Antarctic counterparts, which occurred within the last glaciation (Fig. 3.13). Equally, millennial to centennial scale variability observed within the past 12 ka in ice cores (see later) is not yet understood to the point of providing a firm basis for predictions of future change. The origins of these various cycles and events most likely relate to changes in global ocean circulation, atmospheric circulation, albedo dynamics, and solar variability. Their persistence through time, strong during glacials and weaker during interglacials (like the Holocene, see later), further suggests that such fluctuations can be expected in the future. Ice core data from the last glacial period in Greenland show that change at that time could proceed rapidly - with several increases of more than 10ºC within a decade to possibly one to two years (Fig. 3.13); comparable changes in Antarctica were much slower.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

To take you a little further back in your quote, they used the isotope O18 in the ice core, not gases such as CO2, might want to go back and check about it.

So these people that do all this work at both poles who are specialists in their respective fields from atmospheric/biological/ice/geology (as basic examples) and hold PhDs and have had for many years or are doing their Thesis as cheap labour as part of the team and are relied upon by the IPCC and every other climate driven body and organisation that spread the gospel of CO2 and human influence have all of this wrong.

Sorry then but that completely blows any discussion about Human induced warming through the release of GHGs out of the window, in fact you can strap it to an apollo rocket and fire it in the general direction of pluto and wave goodbye, then they all need to be fired and any work they have done over the last 20-30 years for some of them has to be discredited.

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

To take you a little further back in your quote, they used the isotope O18 in the ice core, not gases such as CO2, might want to go back and check about it.

That is why they listed the ppbv CH4 on the charts referenced and in the description of the chart I quoted.

Quote:

So these people that do all this work at both poles who are specialists in their respective fields from atmospheric/biological/ice/geology (as basic examples) and hold PhDs and have had for many years or are doing their Thesis as cheap labour as part of the team and are relied upon by the IPCC and every other climate driven body and organisation that spread the gospel of CO2 and human influence have all of this wrong.

Not all of it wrong, but the statement of such a fine resolution from an ice core date and concentration is several magnitudes more than any other claim I have ever read. The date/concentration are generally accepted to be no more accurate that centuries at that level for ice cores.

In the 200-year-long U.S. ITASE ice cores from West Antarctica, they showed that while the absolute accuracy of the dating was ±2 years, the relative accuracy among several cores was <±0.5 year, due to identification of several volcanic marker horizons in each of the cores. In this case the cores can be averaged together without creating additional timescale uncertainty, since any systematic errors in the timescale would affect all the cores together.

A recent 200 year old core with a relative accuracy of +1% because of volcanic markers cannot be extrapolated to a 40K core where that same 1% accuracy would swamp a decadal claim several times over.

Quote:

Sorry then but that completely blows any discussion about Human induced warming through the release of GHGs out of the window, in fact you can strap it to an apollo rocket and fire it in the general direction of pluto and wave goodbye, then they all need to be fired and any work they have done over the last 20-30 years for some of them has to be discredited.

No, that creationist approach does not work. Not all research is accurate and not all inaccurate data is useless.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Wayne, before I comment again about the graph data you cite which clearly states O18 is part of the result in your quote, I am reading the 555 page document you linked to, . Some of the scientists that wrote it are the same as the ones involved in other research I have read about, and currently on page 98 of Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment, after waking at 6.30 this morning it is going to take me a while to read it as I would like to know the full context of the paper.

The problem with your second quote about the US ITASE cores is that it does not declare what is being tested for the proxies, is it gases or O18/O16 concentrations or is it pirates, so till I have read this paper and then checked the 2nd paper this has to be set aside for now, have to earn money else the misses will kick my butt.

You claim that innacurate data is not useless, I would have to disagree and believe that the scientific community would have stripped the papers and funding would have been stopped till either the scientists were replaced or they changed their approach. Neither of those things have happened and they are busy doing what they do best again and taking another core I believe.

Wayne, before I comment again about the graph data you cite which clearly states O18 is part of the result in your quote,

Yes, it was PART of the result but not ALL. There was the use of CH4 as a proxy in part of the data. You cannot remove parts of the orignal and claim the same results without having an intimate knowledge of the data and the system.

Quote:

The problem with your second quote about the US ITASE cores is that it does not declare what is being tested for the proxies, is it gases or O18/O16 concentrations or is it pirates, so till I have read this paper and then checked the 2nd paper this has to be set aside for now, have to earn money else the misses will kick my butt.

It does not matter as it was the time scale determination not the temperature proxy that was the issue.

Quote:

You claim that inaccurate data is not useless, I would have to disagree and believe that the scientific community would have stripped the papers and funding would have been stopped till either the scientists were replaced or they changed their approach. Neither of those things have happened and they are busy doing what they do best again and taking another core I believe.

ALL data is inaccurate to some degree, which is why we have the rules on significant digits. The use if error bars is what tells us how accurate the data really is. You can use the less accurate data especially in averages where the accuracy has less impact with larger data sets.

As the paper also noted the timescale for most ice core records is millenial and above because the noise it too large to get accurate results for smaller periods. The last 1000 years is one exception as there are records of activities that remove some of the noise impact. Volcanic eruptions with known dates can bracket data to give a more accurate timescale than could be known otherwise. The known errors are why I question the statement on short term temperature determination from the cores.

Ice core records are best known for the information they provide on millennial andlonger timescales. Their potential use for shorter timescale climate and climate forcingreconstruction (e.g. annually resolved-reconstructions of the last millennium) remains tobe fully exploited. The primary hindrance has been an insufficient number of recordseither to quantify or to improve the signal to noise ratio.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein

Diffusion: The limit to δ18O-based ice core datingSnow is slowly compressed into ice in the upper 80 meters of an ice sheet (read more about the process here). During this process, water vapour can move relative to the ice in the open pores between the snow grains, thereby smoothing the annual δ18O cycles. This diffusion process smoothes the δ18O signal and even erases the annual signal if the annual layers are thinner than 15-20 cm. In ice cores from sites with less than 15 cm of precipitation (measured in equivalents of compacted ice, not snow) per year, the annual cycle in δ18O will be obliterated, and dating based on annual δ18O oscillations is therefore not possible. This is the case for areas in north-eastern Greenland where the annual precipitation rate is significantly lower than 20 cm. For ice cores drilled in areas with about or slightly more than 20 cm of precipitation, diffusion will also blur the annual cycles, but it is possible to retrieve the annual cycle using diffusion correction techniques.

Very slow diffusive processes also take place deeper in the ice sheets. These processes slowly weaken the annual δ18O oscillations as the ice gets older and the layers thin due to the flow of ice.

Due to the diffusion processes, the limit of safe annual layer detection using δ18O / δD measurements is about 8500 years ago in the DYE-3 ice core. More favourable conditions at the summit of the Greenland ice sheet has permitted successful identification of annual layers from δ18O data in more than 14,000 year old ice from the GRIP ice core, while the NGRIP and NEEM ice cores cannot in general be dated using δ18O data alone.

_________________With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none” Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."Albert Einstein